Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration

      Since 1993, the Cochrane Collaboration has been pursuing the vision that health care decision making around the world should be informed by high-quality and timely research evidence. The Collaboration follows several key principles, one of which is “striving for relevance.” To achieve this, the general structure of the Collaboration has been set up to facilitate the involvement of clinicians and patients in developing high-quality evidence through a rigorous process. To increase the impact of its reviews, the Collaboration has over the last 5 years recognized the need for a more accountable and systematic approach to selecting research questions for systematic reviews. The recognition of the importance of identifying the right questions has also led to the development of another initiative in the United Kingdom with which the Collaboration has an increasing working relationship, the James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance facilitates the creation and work of Priority Setting Partnerships to identify uncertainties on specific health problems. Several Cochrane review groups work with the James Lind Alliance to identify and prioritize uncertainties patients and clinicians have about the effects of treatments. However, as the James Lind Alliance is a UK-based initiative, this introduces a challenge for the Collaboration to look at the broader picture and identify different approaches to ensure an international aspect in selecting topics for Cochrane reviews [

      Chalmers I. Systematic reviews and uncertainties about the effects of treatments [editorial]. The Cochrane Library. Available at Accessed May 12, 2010.

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Chalmers I. Systematic reviews and uncertainties about the effects of treatments [editorial]. The Cochrane Library. Available at Accessed May 12, 2010.

        • Board on Health Care Services
        Eden J. Wheatley B. McNeil B. Sox H. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies, Washington, DC2008 (Available at) (Accessed May 12, 2012)
        • Montorzi G.
        • de Haan S.
        • IJsselmuiden C.
        Priority setting for health: a management process for countries.
        Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), Geneva, Switzerland2010
        • Noorani H.Z.
        • Husereau D.R.
        • Boudreau R.
        • Skidmore B.
        Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007; 23: 519
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • Fretheim A.
        Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 2. Priority setting.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 29: 14
        • Stewart R.
        • Caird J.
        • Oliver K.
        • Oliver S.
        Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities.
        Health Expect. 2011; 14: 439-448
        • Viergever R.F.
        Health research prioritization at WHO: an overview of methodology and high level analysis of WHO led health research priority setting exercises.
        World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2010
        • Lomas J.
        • Fulop N.
        • Gagnon D.
        • Allen P.
        On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.
        Milbank Q. 2003; 81: 363-388
        • Elberse J.E.
        • Caron-Flinterman J.F.
        • Broerse J.E.
        Patient-expert partnerships in research: how to stimulate inclusion of patient perspectives.
        Health Expect. 2011; 14: 225-239
        • Rudan I.
        • Chopra M.
        • Kapiriri L.
        • Gibson J.
        • Ann Lansang M.
        • Carneiro I.
        • et al.
        Setting priorities in global child health research investments: universal challenges and conceptual framework.
        Croat Med J. 2008; 49: 307-317
        • Uhm S.
        • Liabo K.
        • Stewart R.
        • Rees R.
        • Oliver S.
        Patient and public perspectives shaping scientific and medical research: panels for data, discussions and decisions.
        Patient Intell. 2011; 4: 1-10
        • Viergever R.F.
        • Olisfoson S.
        • Ghaffar A.
        • Terry R.F.
        A checklist for health resaerch priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2010; 8: 36
        • Sibbald S.L.
        • Singer P.A.
        • Upshur R.
        • Martin D.K.
        Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9: 43
        • Swingler G.H.
        • Irlam J.H.
        • Macharia W.M.
        • Tietche F.
        • Meremikwu M.M.
        A systematic review of existing national priorities for child health research in sub-Saharan Africa.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2005; 3: 7
        • Rylance J.
        • Pai M.
        • Lienhardt C.
        • Garner P.
        Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review.
        Lancet Infect Dis. 2010; 10: 886-892